You consider how to increase taxation more equitably. Maybe it is time to have a fresh look at some of the benefits of land value taxation.

Most debt relates to property value, and in wealthy communities it is the land/location value that tends to dominate this. Land capital value fluctuates wildly in boom and bust, but the basis for LVT are rental values which are more stable.

Unlike “mansion tax” and virtually all other taxes, LVT does not increase with the amount of effort expended in development or in production. However, it does increase where the benefit of publically funded infrastructure projects are enjoyed. Projects such as Crossrail and HS2 could recover some costs through LVT.

LVT can actually encourage production by taxing underutilisation of land/location. Furthermore, it cannot be avoided by the wealthy, unlike many current taxation schemes.

Although not a universal panacea, LVT’s unique qualities would be a useful addition to the taxation portfolio of any struggling government. It may meet with significant opposition, but we are in such a mess that what is best for the whole nation really has to be put first.

What an invigorating breath of fresh air from Matthew Parris! (Hard times) Let all economists leave behind the errors of the past and
work together now to devise a way of dismantling this huge structure of unrepayable debt in the least painful way, before it collapses and crushes us all.
Argument and recrimination is a waste of time and energy. Let all those involved rise to meet this opportunity of a lifetime.
The final advice of the wise Polonius to his son holds the key:- "This above all: to thine own self be true and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man"

The Times 03 10 11 Note. The figures are those in the CT topic below in a single schedule with capacity for changing the variables to test different combinations

Sir
The Council Tax revision proposal advocated by David Wighton (We all hate property tax) is a bold step towards a fairer taxation system.

The suggested rate of .06% of property value is broadly revenue neutral. A rate of .08% would produce enough additional revenue to permit an immediate increase in the income tax personal allowance to £10,000 which, for the average "squeezed middle" family with both parents at work, would be likely to increase net income after paying the increased council tax.

Many working families in lower value houses, typically in poorer areas, would pay less tax overall.

Now is the time for men of goodwill in all political parties to come together to declare the immediate intention to revalue all residential property with the declared purpose of bringing greater justice and equity into the burden of taxation.

The following schedule sets out the calculations and I should make it clear that this is not exclusive to The Times.

It may be of interest to see how the editor can change a submitted letter. The 2nd post in this thread was published in the Economist 8-14th October 2011 as:
"One should consider the benefits of land value taxation (LVT). Unlike a "mansion tax", LVT does not increase with the amount of effort expended in development and production. Furthermore, it cannot be avoided by the wealthy, unlike many tax schemes."

It would be possible to raise enough additional tax on more expensive properties (Tim Montgomerie and letter Adrian Cosker) to raise the limit of tax-free earnings to £10,000, a large and immediate benefit to all those who are hard pressed by the present economic situation
.
If tax on residential properties were to be based on current values instead of on the hopelessly out of date 1991 values as at present, a large proportion of families with both partners working would see a net benefit and the burden would be borne by those living in the more expensive homes, particularly the multi-million pound properties favoured by the extremely rich.

Young working couples who despair of ever being able to buy a home would be able to save more towards the deposit and house prices would tend to moderate, making them more affordable.

Those of us who are older should welcome any practical help for the rising generation on whom we shall have to rely for everything we need in old age.

This practical proposal should commend itself to right thinking politicians of every party and could be set in motion tomorrow by the simple announcement that all residential property will be revalued for the purposes of council tax.

Matthew Parris (Face It) is right but we still have a reason to be cheerful because it gives the opportunity to correct the fundamental error which has brought us to this sorry state, as it has brought down empires in the past. The cause of our difficulties is the private appropriation of the benefits that flow from land as a result of the natural growth of communities.

These benefits arise naturally for the benefit of the community as a whole and should be collected by the state to meet the communal obligations including help to those in need.

When individuals claim possession of the land by force or otherwise the state income has to be collected by taxation and this leads step by step to the separation of rich and poor, the welfare state, the accumulation of debt and the present financial crisis.

The natural revenue should instead be collected by an annual tax based on all land value. This was widely understood and supported by the people in the early years of the twentieth century, guided by both Lloyd George and Winston Churchill.

This is the only way to bring justice to economics. We could start the process tomorrow.
Without Land Value Taxation there is no long term solution to any economic problem.

The leading article "all in it together" 10th Jan. points out the benefits of taxing expensive property in order to reduce taxes on earned income. If the present 1991 values still being used for charging council tax were corrected to current values, it would be possible to increase the annual tax free income of every worker to £10,000. This would be a substantial and immediate benefit to all those who are hard pressed by our current difficulties.

The value of an expensive house always flows from the advantages of its location, provided not by the house owner but by the 99%, the countless workers whose skill and graft provide the multitude of services and utilities without which the land would be worth nothing.

If it is only the community as a whole that gives value to location, it seems reasonable that the community as a whole should receive the benefit in the form of a tax on the value that the owners themselves give to that benefit.

There is no fairer tax than a tax on land values.

For those who are interested, a detailed proposal is shown below. Fuller and more accurate data might be available and the document contains formulae which facilitate alternative calculations.

The final paragraph of the article on dying high streets (4th Feb) mentions that half of high street leases expire before 2015. This appears to be in recognition of the fact that it is the level of rents which is the key to the revival of high streets. The amount of rent that a trader is willing to pay depends on the anticipated level of turnover and this in turn depends on the number of potential customers.

If the potential customers go instead to an out of town supermarket, the number of potential shoppers in the high street will fall and if the shops are to be kept open, the rents must be reduced accordingly.

This demonstrates clearly that the rental value is actually created by the community, who not only shop there but also provide all the necessary public services there. The landlord contributes nothing. If people decide to shop in the high street, the land value there rises. If they decide to shop somewhere else the land value falls.

If the value is solely created by the community, surely it is just and equitable that they should receive the rental value that they have created.

All that is necessary is that business rates should be increased to the full rental value, as agreed by the property market, and collected on all land value including vacant property and vacant sites.

The full increase in the rental value of land used for an out of town supermarket would be assessed at the planning stage and the corresponding loss of value in the high street would be assessed at the same time, again using the mechanism of the market. The comparison of the gain against the loss would decide the merit of the proposed development.

The decision would be made by a democratically appointed authority subject to local opinion, where all shades of opinion could be reflected.

The additional income from rates overall could be used to reduce taxation on earnings and increase shoppers' incomes: an ascending spiral of gains to those who created the value in the first place.

It is a pity that Mary Portas seems to have considered every remedy except the one that would really solve the problem of dying high streets.

Your long list of advantages brought by property taxation is impressive: stability of revenue, unavoidable payment as assets cannot be hidden, recapture of community created value, moderation of erratic prices, and improved efficiency of property stock. Many of those advantages would be very useful in the UK today, despite the mature property market and already having forms of property taxation. Perhaps our existing forms of both domestic and commercial property taxation could be re-examined to ensure we are gaining these benefits most effectively.

Property comprises two very different classes of asset and value; the buildings and the location or land they sit on. Building asset value is created once and then gradually depreciates. Location asset value is constantly refreshed by the surrounding community and public investment. It is the location value that moves significantly and varies across the nation. It is the annual location value that property taxes need to address if those advantages are to be realised effectively.

Let us argue for revising both domestic and commercial property taxes towards the annual land value. This will give the best chance of realising in the UK all those advantages you seek for in China. Raising additional UK public revenue and reducing the worst excesses of both the property market and bank lending would seem to be good incentives.

"Time for a Property Tax" is an excellent description of the benefits of an annual collection of the rent of land. It would certainly be a great help to the people of China. It would be of even greater help to the people of the United Kingdom.

The collection in this country would yield, when fully implemented, sufficient income to relieve all taxation on earnings. It would bring into use all the property currently vacant. It would bring work opportunities for all those who are presently unable to satisfy the basic compelling need to provide for themselves and their dependants. The welfare state would wither and a new vigour would fire the lives of our young people and of all those who have come to this country to enjoy its civic freedoms.

It is not necessary to increase the burdens on those who are already working productively because their effan easily provide for their needs. The problem is that the additional values which manifest simply and solely from working together at certain locations, are presently denied to those who create that value. The consequent need to collect the necessary revenue by taxation starts the descending spiral of loss and deprivation which leads eventually to our current problems.

Eventually, the prodigal son turned to go home. Economists today could open their minds and hearts and turn this nation towards a just and equitable future. The benefits so clearly seen for China are available here.It may be a work of Hercules to shift generations of confused thinking but for true economists, it is possible.

It is time for a property tax in the form of an annual charge on the economic rent of land.

Sir
The proposed redevelopment at Nine Elms is bold and imaginative and deserves full support. The expert advice is that the potential benefits from the proposed scheme are three times the cost.

If the benefits are so great, why is it necessary to ask for financial help from the government, which can only collect it from the taxpayers? The implication is that those who work in the area will pay sufficient tax from their earnings to repay the cost of the railway. The result will be that those who own the land in the surrounding area will receive the benefit of the railway, because the one certainty is that rent and land prices will rise to take the additional revenue. This is the iron law of rent.

Those who work and produce the real wealth to meet the new monetary claims of the landowners will be taxed and the real beneficiaries will receive net unearned income.

The just and equitable way of paying for the necessary railway will be to collect the full unearned income from the increased land values and use it to repay the cost and then to relieve the taxation of earnings generally.

Banks could finance the cost of the railway in addition to the cost of other building works, with repayment as the additional annual revenue from the land value was received by the government.

Chris Richards states (How to calculate HS2's benefits) that the Department of Transport has not yet developed a method to evaluate rail project costs against benefits.
The method is to value the increase in land prices, particularly house prices, which only vary materially in relation to the land value. If the probable increase in land values following the improved train service exceed the cost, the project is justifiable. Any other method of calculating the benefits is illusory because all such benefits will eventually be transferred to the land owners in increased annual rents or in the selling prices of land and houses.
The simple truth of all such beneficial infrastructure projects is that the land owners reap the benefits without doing anything at all and the taxpayers do all the work and bear all the cost.
It does seem that at last people are beginning to understand that they are being taken for a metaphorical ride as well as a train ride.
Surely we can soon introduce annual land value taxation which will collect from the beneficiaries the cost of the benefits they receive.

This topic is used to communicate with school and media.it is also used to posting our article and story in newspaper.This is also encourage the student for writing the novel,story and articles that display the media._________________notice boards

Housing costs are a major factor in the poverty of Breadline Britain. Here is a three-point plan to reduce housing costs. First, a land value tax to drive down the price of property, offset by reductions in income and council taxes. Second, fair rent legislation, and the removal of all tax breaks for domestic landlords. Third, a statutory debt reduction for all borrowers, proportional to the fall in the market, so that their relative position is the same on aggregate. The lenders (the banks) will get a deserved haircut, and their fantasy asset bubble will be popped for ever.
Brian Goodale
Holt, Norfolk

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum